One of the best parts of You Can See Everything is when Nathan says he’s trying to be as honest as he can and wouldn’t omit anything to protect Elizabeth and then immediately shows footage that reveals he misled the audience via omission earlier in the film.

This is the moment that won Lula the runoff: Bolsonaro: "Why did 60% of the prisoners vote for you???" Lula: "I want 100%, including your father!!!"

Correct

OBAMA: He's got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory. It's gold everywhere.

A24 vs. Netflix shows the taste trap tech companies fall into: they want the results of good taste without investing in it. Being a tastemaker means taking risks before the data comes in. Waiting for data means you're not setting trends, you're following them.

Elizabeth Holmes is not actually in pain from a tv show

JUST IN: You Can See Everything is surging in the odds to win Best Picture at the Oscars.

She absolutely knew, deliberately started scrambling the eggs with the intention of him eventually taking over and demonstrating that she really doesn’t have /control/ over anything, thus communicating to the audience that she couldn’t possibly be guilty of what she is accused of because she’s really just being controlled by whatever man is in her life. She hints at this with regards to her relationship with Sunny, and by extension her culpability in Theranos. Every aspect of their involvement in the doc was intentional. She *pretends* not to understand who’s on first. She *pretends* that she really doesn’t think she’s ever told a lie, even though that itself is a terribly lie. Everything is meant to communicate that she is just a hapless autist with good intentions who stumbled into this debacle, but is ultimately undeserving of incarceration. This is all very obvious if you have ever encountered someone who you know believes they can manipulate you.

[SPOILERS on You Can See Everything] People seem to believe that Amanda’s scenes are faithful re-enactments of real moments and dialogue between Nathan and Liz. This is a wild miss. Amanda is not Liz. This is made clear throughout the whole film. Nathan likely made up every scene and line of dialogue himself. It is fiction, like the Hulu series. There is nothing in the second half of the movie that you can trust. Nathan makes it a point that he can never show you or let you hear his conversations with Liz once she goes to jail. You are relying and trusting him completely that these conversations between him and Liz actually happened and that he is retelling them accurately. He lays it on pretty thick that this would be a stupid thing to trust him on. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But, at the same time, maybe he is?? stewing in that uncertainty is intentional. I’m not even sure Billy ever asked for the money. When Nathan confronts him on it in his office, there are some editing tricks to suggest that Billy’s answers don’t correspond to Nathan’s questions. At one point Billy is drinking a Celsius and soon after is drinking a Spindrift. This is meant to signal that you can’t even trust the film when there aren’t re-enactments. I didn’t think this was a hot take but I’ve seen so much commentary about things Liz said that were actually said by Amanda. And people treat Amanda’s scenes as if it was Liz herself. This is the most obvious “con” in the film. They made it clear Amanda is not Liz. The motif of putting words in Liz’s mouth is there throughout the whole film and heavily showcased in the second half. In short, don’t believe Amanda’s re-enactments are accurate quotes from Liz. In fact, I wouldn’t even believe any of these scenes or moments even happened, at least not in any way close to the way they are portrayed. Amanda played a character that Nathan wrote. Whether or not any of it is true is an open question but these scenes are DEFINITELY not meant to be accepted at face value.